webform_element_listList the elements of a Drupal webform by passing its webform ID. Use it to inspect fields, components, and structure before editing or mapping data.
List elements in a webform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webform_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the entry gives no details on pagination, error behavior, permissions, or what happens if webform_id is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a simple list tool, this is appropriately sized and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low-complexity, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the lack of annotation context and sparse parameter guidance leaves the definition minimally viable rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description's phrase 'in a webform' indirectly identifies the sole parameter as the webform selector. It does not specify the expected format (machine name vs. numeric ID) or any constraints, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('elements in a webform'), making the operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like webform_get or webform_element_create, so an agent must still infer the exact boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webform_get or webform_element_create. The description only implies that it is used for listing elements, leaving prerequisites and exclusions unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.